"Risky" Strategies are like Carnival Rides in the Parking Lots of Malls

...They can be exhilarating, but dangerous. Bad analogy - I know.

We started the day in lab at 9am by brainstorming what the affirmative and negative ground was on the trade agreements topic. The lab was broken into three groups and each group decided how they thought ground should be divided. We spent a substantial portion of time talking about to develop a framework, weighing arguments, and the difference between rule-based and consequence-based cases using the demo round between Shane and Liz the day before as a reference.

In the afternoon lab, Mr. Beard gave an affirmative casing lecture with methods to appeal to all types of judges. The lecture also included variable writing skills that would be applicable on any assignment such as using active voice: The government killed the workers. Afterwards, Gary gave a lecture on negative casing including ways to use syllogisms and burdens in replacement of criterion and how to develop the criterion to preclude blippy responses from the AR. The title of this entry is a reference to negative cases which depart from the traditional structure (hence "risky").

Then it rained. A lot.

In the evening lab session, we did a flowing and CX drill. And discussed the demo debate from the day before by going over the flow and arguments made.

Tomorrow night the students have 20 cards due. We will be spending 4 hours in the UNT library tomorrow afternoon.